Liberal Richard Nixon revisionism vs. liberal Alexander Hamilton revisionism

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Obviously they're both terrible, but which is more tolerable and less abjectly infuriating?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nixon, since he did actually enact certain reforms that could genuinely be described as progressive in the context of the time, even if he only did it to ultimately advance his broader conservative goals.

Hamilton was a fervent, radical, and unapologetic opponent of all progressive proposals within his own time period, including the very idea that regular people should have any say in politics at all.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Hamilton was opposed to the Alien and Sedition Acts...

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Hamilton. He was for big government. Nixon actually ran as a conservative.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Nixon did endorse some liberal policies (such as the EPA), even if he was personally conservative. The "Hamilton as progressive visionary" narrative, by contrast, is the product of lazy historianship that divorces ideas from the context in which they existed and the silly idea that policy is synonymous to ideology.

[Mr. Smith]

Easily Nixon.

[Intell]

Hamilton. He was for big government. Nixon actually ran as a conservative.

As did Hamilton. He was the protégé of early american conservatism.

[SWE]

Even though it's infuriating badhistory, it makes sense for liberals to create a mythology around Nixon, so they can claim that Republicans used to be reasonable, unlike the far-right wingers they've become today. On the other hand, there's nothing to be gained from creating an ahistorical narrative around Hamilton to claim his as your own.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Both a terrible, but Hamilton revisionism is just a blantant insult to anybody familiar with the early American history.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i could be wrong but aren't nearly all famous founding fathers terrible for our current values, especially for liberal/progressive values?

nixon sounds - politically - like a decent guy, imho.

PS:  I like the hamilton musical anyway.

[Mopsus]

Hamilton was a fervent, radical, and unapologetic opponent of all progressive proposals within his own time period

Not true: he liked industrialization.

[Santander]

nixon sounds - politically - like a decent guy, imho.

You mean personally. Politically, he was a disaster.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Hamilton was a fervent, radical, and unapologetic opponent of all progressive proposals within his own time period

Not true: he liked industrialization.

Correct, and there was nothing liberal about that in the 1790s. Hamilton was what we would call a business conservative; he supported mercantilism and a centralized monetary policy when he did because such was in the interests of investors, merchants, and the financial classes.

[RINO Tom]

Hamilton. He was for big government. Nixon actually ran as a conservative.

I think it should be obvious that there can be conservative or liberal reasons/motives for supporting big or small government, and I think it's even more obvious that Hamilton's reasons and motives for wanting centralized government were far from liberal.

[Devout Centrist]

Okay, Hamilton easily. Any attempts to downplay the sh*tfest that was Richard Nixon is appalling.

Hamilton was no doubt a hardcore conservative in the American political arena, but the United States was radically liberal by global standards. That in addition to his support for abolition makes him a better figure than Tricky Dick, even if revisionism is nonsense.

[Mopsus]

Hamilton was a fervent, radical, and unapologetic opponent of all progressive proposals within his own time period

Not true: he liked industrialization.

Correct, and there was nothing liberal about that in the 1790s.

It was "progressive", though.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Hamilton was a fervent, radical, and unapologetic opponent of all progressive proposals within his own time period

Not true: he liked industrialization.

Correct, and there was nothing liberal about that in the 1790s.

It was "progressive", though.

Eh, that depends on how you define "progressive." There were certainly segments of the later Progressive movement that drew upon Hamiltonian philosophy, and even Hamiltonian motives, so I can see where you're coming from.

[Intell]

Hamilton was a fervent, radical, and unapologetic opponent of all progressive proposals within his own time period

Not true: he liked industrialization.

Correct, and there was nothing liberal about that in the 1790s.

It was "progressive", though.

No...

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The idea that that which is "progressive" in the sense of being novel is inherently thus also "progressive" in the sense of being left-wing is one of the silliest and most pernicious category errors in political discourse.

[Mopsus]

Eh, that depends on how you define "progressive." There were certainly segments of the later Progressive movement that drew upon Hamiltonian philosophy, and even Hamiltonian motives, so I can see where you're coming from.

What I'm trying to say is that "conservatism", in the context of the early United States, was defined by parochialism over nationalism; agrarianism over industrialization. Alexander Hamilton represented the antithesis of that.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Eh, that depends on how you define "progressive." There were certainly segments of the later Progressive movement that drew upon Hamiltonian philosophy, and even Hamiltonian motives, so I can see where you're coming from.

What I'm trying to say is that "conservatism", in the context of the early United States, was defined by parochialism over nationalism; agrarianism over industrialization. Alexander Hamilton represented the antithesis of that.

There was no "conservatism" in the early United States. What there was was Toryism, which was associated with having opposed the Revolution and which, while clearly on the right, cut across groups that would today be viewed as all over the place on the scale of socioeconomic advantage. Inasmuch as seeking to conserve political and economic forms inherited from Britain (or replicate forms present in Britain) could be seen as "conservative", Hamilton was obviously more conservative than noted Reign of Terror apologist Jefferson, and he was indisputably reactionary and elitist regardless.

[Mopsus]

There was no "conservatism" in the early United States. What there was was Toryism, which was associated with having opposed the Revolution and which, while clearly on the right, cut across groups that would today be viewed as all over the place on the scale of socioeconomic advantage. Inasmuch as seeking to conserve political and economic forms inherited from Britain (or replicate forms present in Britain) could be seen as "conservative", Hamilton was obviously more conservative than noted Reign of Terror apologist Jefferson, and he was indisputably reactionary and elitist regardless.

In Jefferson's America, an ideology based on urbanism, government bureaucracy, and the working class would be unfathomable; in Hamilton's America, it would be the natural left pole of national policy. And, indeed, it is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There was no "conservatism" in the early United States. What there was was Toryism, which was associated with having opposed the Revolution and which, while clearly on the right, cut across groups that would today be viewed as all over the place on the scale of socioeconomic advantage. Inasmuch as seeking to conserve political and economic forms inherited from Britain (or replicate forms present in Britain) could be seen as "conservative", Hamilton was obviously more conservative than noted Reign of Terror apologist Jefferson, and he was indisputably reactionary and elitist regardless.

In Jefferson's America, an ideology based on urbanism, government bureaucracy, and the working class would be unfathomable; in Hamilton's America, it would be the natural left pole of national policy. And, indeed, it is.

In Hamilton's America the working class would never have gained the right to vote, and so such ideology would never stand an even remote chance.

[Mopsus]

In Hamilton's America the working class would never have gained the right to vote, and so such ideology would never stand an even remote chance.

It's hard to say how that would have played out. On the one hand, the first state to abolish the property requirement was Kentucky, but even Hamilton's state of New York gave poor white men the right to vote in the 1820s.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In Hamilton's America the working class would never have gained the right to vote, and so such ideology would never stand an even remote chance.

It's hard to say how that would have played out. On the one hand, the first state to abolish the property requirement was Kentucky, but even Hamilton's state of New York gave poor white men the right to vote in the 1820s.

Which only happened because Hamilton's political party and the general political attitude that he championed were thoroughly defeated in the previous two decades.